I can't imagine not believing in God. (page 60)

EntirelyPossible

My Jesus told me he's always in a tuxedo T-Shirt because it says he wants to be formal, but he's here to party, and he has giant eagles wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with like an angel band and I'm in the front row and I'm hammered drunk. I like to party so I like my Jesus to party.

Twitch

That quote from John C. Reily's character in Talledega Nights is priceless

:)

still thinking

I don't need no stinkin' scripture! ...Palmtree

Yes you god damn do!

Otherwise how are we going to discuss it?...

EntirelyPossible

I know, it's a beautiful thing. My kids just discovered the joy of Talladega Nights, they walk around quoting it all the time.

My son just said to me "Look at you, Dad, walking in here all tall and proud on your legs with me here in this chair, I hope you have sons and they're pro athletes and they get their legs taken away and you know that pain."

tec

LOL...no it's not...it's because you have nothing else to use. And no other evidence.

LOL.. yes it is ;) And I do have something (or rather someone) else. But you state that you do not.

Take away the bible...and all the quotes, and all you have is...'this is what I heard'....And we would all go...oh...that's nice for you.

Well.. some would simply test what was heard. Test the inspired expression. That you state you cannot do this... does not stop someone who can, and does. Just because you get nothing out of it; just because it does nothing to help build you up; does not mean that it does not do so for someone else. I don't need to convince you, Still. Indeed, I cannot convince you. .

Seriously, personal revelation is meaningless for all practical purposes in a group situation like... an internet forum.

. Useless for someone who has no faith, perhaps. Hence the use of the bible in a discussion. But I never found it useless when someone else shared something revealed to them. I did not believe it just because someone else put it out there. I tested it. But often, at the least (for me), it helped me to consider something in a different light. A good thing, imo... because it helps us to consider new things that we might not have, because we can get bogged down with what we are told faith or Christ or God or the Bible or religion is all about. . Peace, tammy

cyberjesus

Satan talks to me.... we have a personal relationship..... i can not imagine not believing in him

transhuman68

Sure, tec. If you want to sit around discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, that’s cool- but it won’t cut it in the real world, lol.

Etude

tec:

" I know the point that you were making. " No, apparently you don't. You want to insist that I explain away the only reference that says somebody was able to write something down (a disciple) while you ignore that the bulk of disciples according to Bible texts were "unschooled" and you want to ignore that for the people of the time, that is what was expected and that for the people of the time, only the very top percent of the populace would have been literate. You also want to ignore that even if disciples were able to read and write (not that such a thing is evident), the level of writing in the canon was way beyond what they would have known. So yes, they were illiterate. Compare that to the level of education of a 6-year old of today. Do you think most adults with that level of proficiency can have the skills to write in such prose? Maybe in your own mind. Besides, there's no point in considering any of that "testimony" when you can't even establish that the writer is actually the apostle and not some other dude.

" Scribes, people who later wrote down what they heard FROM the disciples/apostles/other witnesses. " Right, we've considered that before. But then, you're defeating your own premise. If subsequent writers wrote things down, that may confirm rather than contradict that the "original" disciples and apostles did not do the authoring.

" The only thing that I have been trying to state is that the verse in acts does not show that all the apostles were illiterate. " Well, I had given you an example in the past, which apparently went right over your head, about the black slaves in the US. For all intents and purposes, they were considered illiterate. That did not mean that every single slave was illiterate (I gave you the example of Fredrick Douglas). But it would not be incorrect to say that slaves in the 1800s were illiterate just because a Fredrick Douglas was not just literate but erudite. If you have a problem with that concept, please consult with other people who might set you straight. Likewise, it is patent to me from the Bible that Jesus' followers were of the peasantry and didn't muster the skills to write to the level of the canon. I've already given you plenty of reasons for that so don't bother contradicting it unless you can address those specific reasons.

In the list that I provided you earlier regarding the levels of literacy that were common in those days, I would assume that a tax collector might have been a "4", having the ability to write lists and other documents. But certainly, he would not have had the level of prose exhibited in the gospel of Mathews. My guess is that at this juncture, you're going to ignore all of this and decide that because the possibility exists that some person might have been literate, then you will place some sort of legitimacy to the canon. OK. Good luck. But, that's the wrong conclusion.

" But you had to ignore the account that directly refuted your statement... that all the apostles were illiterate. Are you sure that you have not jumped to a conclusion, yourself? " Of course I did. I jumped to the logical conclusion that there's no way to know and that it's likely they (apostles or disciples) didn't write the canon. I explained to you that the uncertainty of the authorship of the gospel of John casts doubt about the account of literacy (even if you deny that it was the author). That self directed humbleness to not call himself by name as the one Jesus "loved" most makes the work suspect as self-justifiable. I already showed you some evidence why most scholars agree that the one Jesus "loved" most was John but you reject it. At any rate, since John was one of the last parts of the canon to have been written and because it's so different in tone from the other gospels, it becomes suspect as being written by someone else at a future time, providing him with interpretive leeway.

You must understand that none of the early manuscripts in existence say "The Gospel According to John" as a title. The ONLY identification of the author of the gospel of John is the disciple Jesus "loved" most. That is the sole reference that caused the people who established the canon to call a document "The Gospel of John". So, if that disciple is not John the apostle, then John the apostle never wrote the gospel and the other disciple you assume did instead. Doesn't that suggest to you that the authorship of that gospel is in question? Even if a disciple could have written things down, do you think he would have been literate enough to produce the gospel of John? If so, you must have some foundation that at least one disciple was erudite.

" The writing style suggests it to me ." Really? What "writing style"? The Greek sentence structure or the familiar sayings that other ancient works reveal? I don't know about you but I tend to be very conservative and leave that expertise to the experts in ancient linguistics. I only defer to them if what they say makes sense and is not broadly contradicted. Otherwise, it would be arrogant for me to presume I know anything about the style of writing of those days, especially when what I'm reading in English is the result of layers of translations (form old manuscripts) and versions (at times into a yet different language from a translation). You may want to think that one over.

" Um... yes. That is what i have been stating all along." Hmm...I think you misread my statement: "[The] fact that Acts 4:13 mentions John specifically means that the one Jesus "loved" most was indeed incapable of writing a gospel." I don't think that's what you were arguing.

" One (or at least something that one is based on - John) seems to be written by an apostle who is literate. " Well, I just spoke to that. What seems obvious to you is not so easily perceived by most historical critics. I think I can side with them for many good reasons. If you are certain of the authenticity of the canon, I don't know on what basis you can be certain since most historical critics will say otherwise. If now you're saying that some of the NT was "dictated", you would have to show how you know that and possibly point to the scribe. If you really can't do that, then you're just speculating. I mean, you did say: "I was speculating." So, I take it that means you don't really know if John wrote "John" the gospel or letters; you don't really know if other writings were dictated or who the scribes were; you don't know for sure how many and which disciples were literate enough to write anything in the NT. No. You're just speculating.

OK. So you heard about the president from some individuals and from the media. These would be individuals who really don't know him either but will swear to you that their testimony is accurate, because they heard it from good, reliable sources full of references regarding when they saw the president and what he did. Then you have the media and books. If I go by what Fox News says about the president, I would think he's a Socialist Muslim born in Nigeria with an intent purpose to destroy America. Let's see, how can I discern the difference? Here's where you fail: You assume that what you hear (especially the parts you favor, the ones you get to pick) are true. Then you proceed to hangout somewhere where you may encounter the president and project all of those pre-chosen attributes on him. Pahhleeezzz! Never mind that reading about Christ and then "meeting" the Christ is not the same thing as learning about the president and then meeting the president. The president would not be some figure that only you can communicate with and have a relationship with. At least he would not be a figure that others have the impossibility to observe you having a relationship with.

" but there is something for so many people to be affected" – regarding space aliens. Well, there kinda is something. It's very similar to what happens to a lot of people who believe in Christ without any particular explainable foundation. Not only it is something but it's also very similar from person to person. And guess what, just like the people who were abducted in very similar ways learn from each other, the ones that believe in Christ also learn from each other. Thy call that "testimony".

Regarding my explanation that there aren't different types of "natural" events you state:

"You are right... there are not. There is natural that we know... and there is natural that we do not yet know, understand, grasp. Something that some refer to the supernatural." Boy, you lost me there. First you admit there aren't different types of "natural" and then you say there is the something other we don't yet know which we call supernatural. Did you miss that "natural" means coming from nature and thereby being explainable by natural processes? Then you go on to acknowledge what natural means by saying:

" I understand that you are stating that something does not get to be delegated as natural until we can test or measure and explain it. So I cannot give you the evidence you are seeking as to the spiritual. "

But then, you dive back into the other natural by bringing the spirit in again to explain what happens to something we can't address by any natural means: " But from the pov of some who have some knowledge of the Spirit, then it has become natural (it always was, it just was not understood) ". I think you mean it has become "familiar" to them and not natural in the sense that it can be confirmed. It's not semantics, Tammie. It's logic, the kind that would wreak havoc with your spiritual world.

" They [our physical reality and your spiritual reality] will 'jibe' (they are two differnt things in reality... like water and land, as an example, on the same planet; spiritual and physical in the same existence) One day everyone will see that, and then the supernatural... will simply be the natural. "

No. Water and land can be explained by the same natural rules. They are not different realms. You made that point before, but my explanation didn't seem to register. Here it is again. After looking at you construct, it became obvious to me that the "rules" that govern your spiritual realm are unverifiable outside of your construct (namely yourself). Since humanity (mainly scientists) have tried very hard to explain the world in terms of physical laws which can be reasoned and tested over and over, it would seem impossible that the rules for each reality would be the same since one set (the physical laws) is deducible and the other set (the spiritual rules) just is and can't be explained. If it is only that no one has yet found a way to tie them together logically, then we are forced to accept the physical world as verifiable and the spiritual world as up for grabs, anything goes, dial-a-god. Then and only until an explanation surfaces, can you say with certainty that we understand the rules governing the spiritual in terms of some logical "natural" process.

" THIS is why I refer to the bible. Not for my sake... but for the sake of discussion with those who draw upon nothing else in understanding God. " Yes Tammie. But with as much frequency you refer to the Spirit and the knowledge you derive from the spirit and the evidence from testimony from others that appear also connected with the spirit. My idea is that you start a thread about the illiteracy of the disciples and see what kind of information and evidence you end up with. I know you already think they were literate and were responsible for the writing of the canon. However, you might be surprised how much information some people who have not been on this thread will provide. Let me know when you do.

still thinking

And I do have something (or rather someone) else....tec lol Well.. some would simply test what was heard. Test the inspired expression...tec LOL That you state you cannot do this... does not stop someone who can, and does...tec LMAO Just because you get nothing out of it; just because it does nothing to help build you up; does not mean that it does not do so for someone else...tec LMAO I don't need to convince you, Still. Indeed, I cannot convince you. ..tec Correct.

still thinking

Sure, tec. If you want to sit around discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, that’s cool- but it won’t cut it in the real world, lol. ..trans

I'm sure there MUST be a scripture for that...lets find it and discuss it trans.... My guess is 42...but I'll let the holy spirit guide me to find the scripture....and you could ask too trans.

I can't imagine not believing in God.

Share this